My Thoughts on DnD, and the next Edition (Long, rambly)

[Belen]

PS: I also detest the Pokemout, Animal Companion mess. 3.5 turned these from optional features into a permanent class feature. I much preferred the days when you had to quest for a mountand actually care about your companion to the current days when you just summon a creature which means little and it primarily used as a combat feature.

 

[drothgery]

Argh. Would people please stop to call armor as DR "realistic"? It's not. Well, it's as realistic as knights bashing each other with 15 lbs iron sticks. Or as realistic as daggers being faster than twohanded greatswords. It's Hollywood medieval movie flavor, not realism. If you like that flavor, no big deal, have fun, but it hurts my eyes and several other important body parts to read this "realistic" over and over again.

I don't think anyone said armor as DR was realistic, just more realistic than armor as an AC bonus. Which is arguable -- armor as an AC bonus doesn't make you harder to hit; it makes it harder to hit you in a way that does damage -- but it's not absurd (like 15 lb swords or daggers being faster than greatswords).

 

[Belen]

PSS: Armor as AC is fine. It is meant to not scale with primary attacks. AC works well for secondary attacks.

 

[glass]

My wishlist for a 4e

I would also like to see armour as DR, or possibly DR + SMALL bonus to defence as that gives two axes on which to differentiate armours.

I'd like to see the cleric's spellcasting ability toned down (unless they choose magic related domains), and the druid's too. Sorc and wis should be the best, as they have nothing else going for them.

I like the idea of generic classes with lots of feats, but I probably wouldn't want to go the whole hog: keep a couple of oddball classes around just to keep it feeling like D&D. Maybe Warrior, Expert, Spellcaster (or Mage, Priest), Monk, Bard, Paladin.

I'd also like to see the number of bonus types reduced to the point where it is practicable to have a box for every one on the character sheet.


That's all I can think of right now.


glass.

 

[glass]

Oh, and one more thing...

One more thing I have thought of:

I'd like to see a wound point/vitality point system. Not the one in Star Wars and Unearthed Arcana, which strikes me as backwards.

Everybody can dodge or be lucky for a while, but only heroes can actually take a hit and keep going: thus everybody should have VP, only heroes (or big things) should have WP (or hp if you prefer).

Thinking of recent movies, Boromir and Achiles took a few arrows before dropping. Noone human should take dozens!


glass.

 

[FireLance]

PS: I also detest the Pokemout, Animal Companion mess. 3.5 turned these from optional features into a permanent class feature. I much preferred the days when you had to quest for a mountand actually care about your companion to the current days when you just summon a creature which means little and it primarily used as a combat feature.

Not to pick on you, BelenUmeria, but what you've said is one good reason why I think 4e should be modular. The current rules, though criticized as being "videogamey", have the advantage of appealing to casual players. You don't have to invest too much emotional energy into your character, his mount, his henchman and his pet dog; at the most superficial level, you can just play him, videogame or wargame style, as a collection of statistics and combat abilities.

However, the current rules do not do such a good job of catering to the dedicated roleplayer who wants the additional emotional dimension of caring for his character and looking after his mount and other followers. A modular system (with a section on "advanced options for role-playing paladins", for example) would enable the development of a consistent and standardized set of rules for such situations instead of leaving it to each DM to make up his own.

 

[Belen]

Not to pick on you, BelenUmeria, but what you've said is one good reason why I think 4e should be modular. The current rules, though criticized as being "videogamey", have the advantage of appealing to casual players. You don't have to invest too much emotional energy into your character, his mount, his henchman and his pet dog; at the most superficial level, you can just play him, videogame or wargame style, as a collection of statistics and combat abilities.

My point is that they used to be optional. A paladin did not need a mount. If a player wanted one, then they went through the GM. The same stood for Druids and Rangers.

The mount and animal companion should have remained options. They should not have been incorporated into the rules as faceless combat monkeys.

As options, the mounts and animal companions were god ways to introduce more RP into the game. Now, they are just another thing that players get and are entitled too.

 

[Umbran]

We represent the majority of d20 players.

Not even. We may represent the majority of d20 players who are driven to discuss the game on message boards. Statistically, EN World is an oddly selected sample, and shouldn't be considered as representative of much of anything.

 

[Torm]

The mount and animal companion should have remained options. They should not have been incorporated into the rules as faceless combat monkeys.

I don't know that I've EVER had a Faithful Mount - I've always traded the class feature out with gracious DMs for letting my Aasimar (and I've played a few of those) develop celestial wings, or my Half-Celestial (done that a couple of times, too) develop better manueverability. That said, I like the "Pokemount" concept, and if we ever come back to playing Henry's FR campaign, I will probably get my first one because of it - it allows me to have one, while eliminating most of the reasons I wouldn't before. (Have you ever noticed in, oh, say, fighter pilot sims as an example, that the missions where you just go blow stuff up are usually a LOT easier than the ones where you have to ensure the survival of something you're escorting? The previous mount was always, to me, the escorted - a hostage to fortune I didn't want.)

And as far as poor develpment of the characterization and ROLEplay aspects of the relationship between mount/animal companion/familiar and player, I strongly suspect you blame the wrong culprit. Let's face it, the rule set really doesn't matter much when a LOT of players are munchkin-y enough that they would regard the animal as just a tool, anyway.

 

[Merlion]

Li Shenron: I'm not sure why so many people are bringing up the whole classless thing, in the way that they are. We know DnD isnt ever going to go to a classless system.

I am trying to keep this discussion in 2 seperate areas...things we think may actually happen in 4th edition, and things we'd like to see happen. I realize some would like to see classless DnD, but it should be prefaced as something they want...its one of those things I dont think will happen in any addition of D&D.

Darklone:

Argh. Would people please stop to call armor as DR "realistic"? It's not

Its certainly a *heck* of a lot more realistic than the idea that wearing full plate makes you harder to strike with a weapon. More importantly, its a lot more *logical*. Now yea you can say armor keeps you from "being hit" in a way that does damage...but isnt that...damage reduction?

But really I would rather actually discuss things than argue over wether this or that is realstic or not.

Clerics: Healer class, nothing else

I tend to agree. The Cleric needs a single definite class role like everyone else. Of course if they become just the healer, they are no longer really a Cleric (Cleric is simply another word for priest, and being a priest doesnt have anything inherently to do with healing).

CBDB: Yeah, but then remove a lot of magic items.

Why?

FireLance:

I agree about Magic Rating, and since it was published in UA, it wouldnt really shock me to see it get included in a new edition.

Save or Dies: They do need tweaking. I dont think however that they should just be powered down (as Monte Cook didnt in Arcana Unearthed). If they are made "more survivable", then I think the detirmental effects suffered if a save is made need to be increased a bit, instead of being nearly meaningless. To me their main problem is that currently they are basically all or nothing.

Modularity: I partially agree with this, to a point. In some ways I think D&D is currently catering a little to much to beginers. What I really think (and this also plays into the Mounts and Animal Companions issue) is that there needs to be a lot more coverage of this concept: Its ok to change the game, and Heres Advice on How to Do It.

Although as far as the whole Animal Companion/Mount thing I dont see the big deal. If you want to roleplay questing for an animal companion or mount, do it. Just ignore where it says its automatic, and roleplay it instead.


BelenUmeria:

Sorry, Merlion, I totally disagree with most of your argument

Ok first and foremost, I dont have an arguement. I am speculating about 1) what I think will happen in the next edition and to a lesser extent 2) about what I and the rest of us would like to see happen in a new edition.

Most of the "sacred cows" in DnD remain because a majority of people enjoy them

1) I am not sure this is entirely true. Or at least exactly true. I think a lot of people do enjoy them, but I think at least as many people would not like to be quite so bound by them. In particular, I dont think many people like sacrificing balance or logic in the name of "sacred cows."
Also, the single biggest reason they remain is because, correct or incorrect, WOTC doesnt want to loose its player base. Bear in mind, they considered changing some of those things in 3rd edition (like Vancian magic).

2) I am not talking about killing sacred cows, especially not in terms of what I am saying I think will happen in a new edition. Things like Armor as DR and CBDB do not interfere with sacred cows.

The one major change I would like to see with 4e is the death of the PrC. Feats should be expanded to handle advanced options. Heck, they could even call them advanced feats. In addition, most classes would need additional feats. Or maybe a mechanic that allows someone to pick one feats and then automatically progress in a certain chain etc or something on par with the bloodline mechanic.

I think this is unlikely to happen given the massive popularity of prestige classes.

I really dont see why some people dislike them. Yea theres huge scads of them, and quite a few individual PrCs are silly or whatever, but having a glut of a thing is inevitable in D&D. Its just like theres loads and loads of spells, and many of them are either silly or broken, but nobody talks about removing spells.

However, what you mention about Feats is interesting. Although many Prestige Class type abilities, especially supernatural ones, are unlikely to be made into Feats, becase feats are to accessible, and limiting their accessibility to much violates the nature of feats.

Personally, I have strong reservations about the 4e. I think it will have much more in common with a miniatures or computer game than a traditional RPG. There is a good chance that the GM will be cut out of the equation further as well.

I agree that more room for DM freedom needs to be injected into D&D. This is linked to the catering to much to beginers idea. They want everything to be easy to understand and every detail layed out, which can be good, but there needs to be a lot more reminders of the fact that the game can be changed, and the rules are subject to interpretation